Both Dr. Abbas Milani's book "The Persian Sphinx" and Ambassador
Fereydoun Hoveyda's "The Shah and the Ayatollah" expand upon
their conclusions based on Iranian Mythology, or more specifically their
re-interpretation of Iranian Mythology.

Here again, is a good example to present the main thesis of this web
site. That these gentlemen's prejudices against Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi
and our Imperial heritage, and their academic fetish for the idea of "a
Republic", clouds their judgment so much so that, what has been 'common'
sense interpretation of our history to generations of Iranian's, has been
turned upside down and presented to un weary readers as the basis to promote
their old political theories for contemporary consumption.

From the Shah and Ayatollah: “Of all causes of the Revolution,
the role of Iranian mythology in the life of the nation is most noteworthy…
. Understanding the root cause of the Revolution in 1979 involves a deciphering
of this rich mythology. ….. For example, the place and role of the
“father” in Iranian society is very different from that of
other Middle Eastern patriarchs and tribal chieftains, as it is a divergence
from the Western model as well. Iranian’s “father myth”
is the exact opposite of the Oedipus legend. You will recall that Dr Abbas
Milani discussed this in the book about my brother, the
Persian Sphinx. He mentions that in the western Oedipus myth, the
son kills the father. But in the Iranian Shahnameh, the father, Rostam,
kills his son, Sohrab. It is a metaphor for the victory of the patriarch.
The Iranian “father” is an omnipotent autocratic figure whose
authority cannot be questioned by his offspring. His absolute power is
ingrained in Iranian mythology and is a major key in understanding what
has happened in that nation”.

To be honest, it is sickening to have to deal with such an interpretation
in deciphering of the Rostam and Sohrab myth. Let me briefly present this
myth, and expand on it again, to show you Fereydoun Hoveyda and Abbas
Milani are in fact attempting to uproot our national culture by propagating
falsehoods.

A baby boy born with white hair and being rejected by his mother is taken
by “Symorgh” (mythic bird symbol of the creator’s plan)
to a mountaintop and is raised there. Later on, the son of this boy, Rostam,
becomes the most powerful hero in the Iranian legends, and is assigned
the job of putting down the Turanian attacks. In one of his hunting occasion
near Samangan, a city of Turan, after hunt and feast, while relaxing,
he goes to sleep. When he wakes up, he does not find his horse. In search
of the horse, he reaches Samangan. When the Shah of Samangan learns of
Rostam’s arrival, he welcomes him. At bedtime, Tahmineh, the beautiful
daughter of the Shah of Samangan, goes to Rostam’s bedroom and tells
him that he has such a world-wide fame of power and good behaviour that
she wishes to be married to him and have a well-bred child from him. Rostam
noticing that in addition to having beauty, she is learned too, asks a
“Mubed”(Zoroastrian clergy) to request the Shah of Samangan
for his daughter’s hand in marriage. The Shah of Samangan appreciates
this and a well-deserved marriage ceremony is arranged.

After the marriage, Rostam goes to Zabolestan. When departing, Rostam
gives his armband to Tahmineh and tells her that if their child is a daughter
to use it as her hair decoration, and if it is a boy, to use it as his
armband, as his father did.

The child of this blessed marriage, Sohrab, is raised in Turan Zamin.
At the age of 18, not only is he taller and stronger than the greatest
Turanian historic heroes, but also he is taller and stronger than the
greatest of Iranian legendary heroes, Rostam, and is assigned by the Shah
of Turan to lead the war against Iran.

When these two heroes face each other to fight, Sohrab tries hard to
find out the identity of his opponent. Rostam hides his identity and suffices
to rhetoric and boasts about himself. They engage in different types of
fighting. While wrestling, Sohrab, being the stronger, pushes Rostam to
the ground. Rostam, cunningly, tries a trick and requests to be excused
and be given a second opportunity. In the next move when Rostam pushes
Sohrab to the ground, he does not give Sohrab a similar opportunity and
pushes his dagger into his side. When Sohrab tells his opponent that you
killed me, but you will not be able to get away with this when you meet
my father, Rostam. Rostam is shocked and when he sees his armband on Sohrab’s
arm, he notices that he has killed his own son.

Ferdowsy dramatises this myth to the maximum, and through it, indirectly
suggests to the reader, the first of whom being the Soltan Mahmood Ghaznavy
who wants his position to be cleared in Iranian history, the following:

Acceptability of the superiority of Iran to Turan, to Soltan Mahmood
Ghaznavy (a Turan king himself being a product of mixed marriage),
by reflecting the superiority of the son of a mixed marriage. In this
way, he welcomes mixed marriages of different races as improving the
health of the next generation.

Inspiring superiority of the son of a mixed marriage to the Turanian
older generation and presenting Iran as a more important country,
Ferdowsy tries to use Iranian mythology to attract Turanians to accept
Iranian identity and culture.

Dramatising and presenting the Turanian trained Sohrab as an Iranian
dear son, he inspires acceptance of the Turk Shahs as Iranian, and
in this way ends the old enmity and discrimination between these two
races. (A point to be considered by today’s separatists)

Iranian women’s self-esteem, decency and independence in harmony
and in line with nature for the creation of a stronger next generation.

Focusing attention to rhetoric and avoiding truthfulness has tragic
results.

Furthermore, he describes the qualities of manhood and leadership
as understood in the Iranian culture, together with the weaknesses
in human beings

To present Rostam’s killing of his son in a myth that as put by
Ferdowsy “del e nazok as Rostam aayad be khashm” (anyone with
a sensitive heart would be angry with Rostam) and which clearly presents
the superiority of the son and suffering of the father who through trickery
and diverting from truthfulness kills his son, and to use this myth as
a metaphor for omnipotent autocratic “father” whose authority
can not be questioned by his off-springs, in order to hint that the Iranian
Monarchy is inherently dictatorial, and to justify the Revolution is beyond
belief!

Again I must re-iterate, Mr. Hoveyda, the Shah did NOT kill your brother.

When those who had access to foreign classified documents that indicate
foreign intrigues make such comments, it shows that their moral standards
have gone as low as the moral standards of their new compatriots.

To appreciate the role of the “father figure” in Iranian
mythology, one should learn how a society is formed, the function of leadership
in a society, how the leadership is formed, the reasons for symbolization
of leadership, how the different social forces act in a society, the forces
that bring people together, the forces that create discrimination, forces
of competition, the force of lust for power, etc.

When they noticed the unconscious effect of the characteristics of the
“father figure” on the followers, the creation of the symbolic
“father figure” became a solution to co-existence of groups
of people with different languages, different religions and different
ways of life. To solve the question of co-existence in a multi-cultural
society, symbolization of the leader became a way of creating a general
approach to life among different sub-cultures. Through accepting hereditary
leadership, stability of the culture was safeguarded. Hereditary leadership
also acted as a solution to the struggle of those hungry for power and
those hungry for plunder. Accepting the leadership as a “father
figure” which has a social position above all religious and ideological
leaders was to create a counter-balance against the totalitarian religious
or ideological rule which forced one groups views on the others, and to
safeguard freedom of expression, and dialogue between different cultures,
aimed at the improvement of knowledge and moral standards for the good
of all.

Implying dictatorship to the Iranian mythological and historical “father
figure” is a misrepresentation of history and should not be mistaken
with the absolute totalitarian rule of God, which appeared in Iran two
millennium later (or absolute totalitarian ideological rule, of the sorts
promoted by Dr. Milani, that attempted to seize power in the past).

Ambassador Hoveyda goes on and states in the interview about the Shah
and Ayatollah book, "The Shah, like Jamshid, became a despotic autocrat,
with identical, tragic result. ….. All of this shows that there
must be a complete break with the circular past. There must be a political
and cultural alternative in Iran that is neither Achamenid kingship nor
Islamic theocracy, but the development of an honest Republic. …..
But it must not be an attempted copy of European or American constitutional
models, but a constitutional republican model that takes account of the
unique role and influence of the Iranian mythologies."

After the deranged comment on the mythology of Rostam and Sohrab, discussed
earlier, one should not be surprised to see the most celebrated Iranian
mythical figure “Jamshid” being presented by Hoveyda as a
metaphor for a despotic autocrat. Does he not know that Iranian myths
created the Hakhamaneshi Shahanshahi? Does he not know that Judaism accepted
Kurosh as a God sent saviour? Does he not know that Arabia, Cartage, independent
Mediterranean islands and the countries north of Greece, voluntarily requested
to pay “Kharaj” (tax) and become Iranian Satrapees (Province)?
Does he not know that all the various religious establishments got the
most support during the Hakhamaneshi Shahanshahi? Does he not himself
mention that the Iranian identity survived Greek hordes under Alexander?
So why should the upholder of freedom of expression be called a despotic
autocrat by him, unless he is influenced by the enemies of Iranian culture.

If he has any doubt on these matters, he should read Herodotus’
(the Greek historian born within the confines of the vast Persian Empire,
often called the father of Western history). Herodotus states "in
this book, I hope to do two things. To preserve the memory of the past
by putting on record the astonishing achievements both of our own and
of the Asiatic people. Secondly and more importantly, to show how the
two races came into conflict." He goes on to explain that by Asia
he means both Persians and the lands dominated by them. It seems Herodotus
a Greek from 2400 years ago has a better appreciation of our Cultural
Heritage than Ambassador Hoveyda, Ambassador, no less, of the Pahalvi
dynasty of Iran.

When he addresses His Imperial Majesty the ShahanShah AryaMehr of Iran,
as “this man”, a despotic autocrat, was he himself not His
Majesty’s Ambassador to the UN. Does this not reflect his own duplicity?

When he says, “he (the Shah) took the credit for any and all of
the advances made in Iran. He forgot the group of liberal reformers within
his country, which included Amir Abbas...", was it not Amir Abbas
Hoveyda, the prime minister, who constantly expressed his honour in executing
His Majesty’s wishes (the “manviaateh mobarakeh molukaneh”)
and announcing his pride of the Shah’s motives for the future of
the country? Is Mr Hoveyda not aware of symbolism and does he reject the
creation of national identity?

What were those liberal reformers able to carry out when the
shah left the country Ambassador Hoveyda?

Why criticise the departure of the Shah, when those liberal reformers
were insisting that His Majesty should leave the country, and His Majesty
who had to leave the country due to urgent medical necessity, related
to his terminal illness, transferred the power to those liberal reformers?
When he presents the Shah as a despotic autocrat and refers to an admirable
legacy for his brother, is he creating a legacy or is he insulting Amir
Abbas who acted as the main player in this alleged blame? Does His Majesty’s
order that no blood should run from the nose of the opposition, reflect
a despotic character?

The problem with Fereydoun Hoveyda's worldview is that he does not actually
apply the theory that he himself so elegantly builds and thereby reaches
the wrong conclusion.

When Hoveyda tells us: "There must be a political and cultural alternative
in Iran that is neither Achaemenid Kingship nor Islamic theocracy, but
the development of an honest Republic.... but it not be an attempted copy
of European and American constitutional models, but a constitutional republican
model that takes account of the unique role and influence of Iranian mythologies"

One is rather baffled, since one form of modern democracy that closely
captures the essence of Iranian epics is a modern constitutional monarchy.
Why should we drop it?

Hoveyda's disdain of constitutional monarchy seems to be based on the
mythical model of the Iranian King. First he depicts the legend of Jamshid
(Mohammed Reza Shah), the good patriot king who succumbed to his own vanity
and therefore lost to Zahak (Khomeini). From there Hoveyda generalizes
the conclusion that the Achaemenid prototype of Kingship is internally
flawed since even a good king will end up in self-deification and eventually
self-destructs.

Even though he provides no further qualification of the inevitability
that ALL good kings of Iran will eventually turn out bad, the problem
with Hoveyda's argument is he is selective in his choice of legends. Who
defeated Zahak?

Was not it Fereydoun, an enlightened Prince of Iran who was raised amongst
the people who led the people's insurrection against Zahak, the foreign
evil invader who ate the brains of Iran's youth?

My unfortunate conclusion is that Hoveyda's selective choice of legends
is based on personal animosities and not unbiased rationality. The unintended
but logical conclusion of Hoveyda's argument is however far more damaging
than it looks on the surface since it leads to the wholesale annihilation
of all Iranian cultural traditions, good and bad.

Let me elaborate. Consider the archetype of the woman-hero in pre-Islamic
Iran: Shirin.

She was an Iranian Princess from Armenia who upon seeing the picture
of a handsome Prince (Khosrow) decided to check him out for herself.
She rides unescorted for weeks from Armenia to Fars, meets Khosrow
and falls in love. She goes hunting with Khosrow. They go to parties
together. They debate philosophy and history. Life is not about endless
suffering and martyrdom but about joy and fulfillment. Kosrow decides
Shirin is hard to get and sets her eyes on easy pray (Shekar). Shirin
does the same and falls in love with Farhad. During this entire episode,
courtship is free and equal. Sex is only consensual. Shirin is a modern
woman. Despite being a 1700-year-old ancient princess of Iran, Shirin
can comfortably live in the Twenty First Century.

Compare Shirin with her Akhondi counterpart Layli (Layli and Majnoun).

Here is a poor wretched creature who dared to innocently fall in
love with her classmate. In the name of virtue, they married her to
another man. The whole story is about endless torture, torment and
conspiracies. The woman behind Layli was never allowed to exist.

The Mullahs say throw out Shirin and keep Layli. Hoveyda says throw both
away and embrace Jill (Of Jack and Jill fame) for Shirin and Layli both
belong to history. I ask why should not we Iranians keep Shirin and shed
Layli?

Why should not we Iranians have our Fereydoun? My answer is Shirin, Fereydoun
and a constitutional monarchy do the same exact job that their western
counterparts do in their respective societies as far as principles are
concerned. Our native or epic models of modernity have however a far better
chance of success because they belong to our culture.

Hoveyda's rationale behind the "verdict" that he renders on
Reza Pahlavi is even more detrimental. He argues that Reza Pahlavi is
doomed because his father left Iran and did not stay back and he himself
is superficial.

If Iran's miseries are rooted in its patriarchal society why would a
Modern man revisit the perceived sins of the father on the son? If the
Rostam Complex is about the old guard crushing the young in the bud and
thereby hindering natural progress why would an experienced diplomat lash
out on a young freedom fighter rather than offering him the benefit of
his counsel?

Hoveyda is completely within his rights if he favors a secular republic
to a constitutional monarchy. The issue is how does discrediting Reza
Pahlavi help that cause? Especially at this point of time when the young
heir to the throne is trying to put consensual government in his place
via a multi-stagedNational Referendum
under International Observation?

Reza Pahlavi is calling for a Referendum not the automatic reinstitution
of monarchy. A secular republican and a constitutional monarchist have
far more in common than any of them might have with the so called Islamic
Republic. It is sad but Hoveyda, the cosmopolitan intellectual, the sole
survivor of the original signatories of the Declaration of Human Rights
reduces himself to a Calabrese Don out on a family vendetta.

For the record, Mr. Hoveyda, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi did NOT betray your
brother. The real culprit is not even that miserable psychopath Sadegh
Khalkhali. Secular Iranian intellectuals hatched the plot for the murder
of Amir Abbas Hoveyda, your brother and our friend years before 1979.

The day, Iranian intellectuals gave up on the ideals of reconstructing
Iran's infrastructure before attempting revolutionary political change
is when your brother's countdown started. The day when Iranian lay intellectuals
did not challenge Ali Shariati or Al Ahmad's gibberish, thinking, "The
enemy of my enemy is my friend" is when they gave the first bullet
to your brother's assassin. The day when educated Iranians gave up on
a secular consensus and started to fight amongst each other rather than
talk to each other oblivious to "Zahak" waiting at the door;
that is the day Amir Abbas Hoveyda and his vision for Iran were lynched.

Mr. Hoveyda, in our tradition we have another archetype called "Pir
e Farzaneh", the Sage Old Man. That is a long line of men from Bozorgmehr
to Foroughi to Seddighi. The Iranian Pir's most distinguishing features
are not just his science but also the unity of his thoughts and deeds.
I always knew that you had the first part that is knowledge; I had hoped
that you would have the second part, which is ethics (Fazilat). I still
hope that true to the legacy of your last name you will be the healer
of the secular consensus not the divider.

To present Rostam’s killing of his son in a myth
which clearly presents the superiority of the son and suffering of the
father who through trickery and diverting from truthfulness kills his
son, and to use this myth as a metaphor for omnipotent autocratic “father”,
in order to hint that the Iranian Monarchy is inherently dictatorial,
and to justify the Revolution is beyond belief!

Again I must re-iterate, Mr. Hoveyda, the Shah did NOT
kill your brother.

Why should the upholder of freedom of expression be called
a despotic autocrat?

The problem with Fereydoun Hoveyda's worldview is that
he does not actually apply the theory that he himself so elegantly builds
and thereby reaches the wrong conclusion.

I still hope that true to the legacy of your last name
you will be the healer of the secular consensus not the divider.